Francois 1956

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   63  0.0263  0.0058  0.0357  0.0363  0.0352  0.03
Ax 1995   56  0.3410  0.0235  0.0834  0.0849  0.0435  0.06
Bacha 1998   30  0.4528  0.0029  0.1127  0.2834  0.0722  0.14
Barbosa 1983   61  0.1953  0.0044  0.0643  0.0659  0.0443  0.05
BenOr 1989   46  0.3954  0.0050  0.0452  0.0463  0.0353  0.03
Biret 1990   41  0.4125  0.0031  0.1031  0.2062  0.0332  0.08
Brailowsky 1960   17  0.521  0.341  0.342  0.753  0.701  0.72
Chiu 1999   2  0.612  0.122  0.173  0.7415  0.394  0.54
Clidat 1994   24  0.4815  0.0112  0.1119  0.5040  0.0617  0.17
Cohen 1997   60  0.2443  0.0056  0.0358  0.0365  0.0262  0.02
Cortot 1951   3  0.5814  0.0115  0.1515  0.5430  0.1111  0.24
Csalog 1996   20  0.5061  0.0019  0.1017  0.5255  0.0423  0.14
Czerny 1989   54  0.3634  0.0037  0.0836  0.0861  0.0340  0.05
Ezaki 2006   51  0.3717  0.0025  0.0828  0.2753  0.0525  0.12
Falvay 1989   34  0.4459  0.0032  0.0832  0.1558  0.0431  0.08
Fiorentino 1962   52  0.3629  0.0063  0.0359  0.0366  0.0163  0.02
Fliere 1977   18  0.527  0.0321  0.1224  0.3443  0.0720  0.15
Fou 1978   32  0.4535  0.0033  0.0739  0.0756  0.0438  0.05
Francois 1956   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Goldenweiser 1946   8  0.5527  0.0016  0.1114  0.5534  0.0714  0.20
Gornostaeva 1994   58  0.3045  0.0047  0.0453  0.0457  0.0548  0.04
Groot 1988   29  0.4648  0.0034  0.0740  0.0761  0.0344  0.05
Hatto 1993   37  0.4322  0.0054  0.0545  0.0565  0.0254  0.03
Hatto 1997   27  0.4619  0.0049  0.0455  0.0461  0.0350  0.03
Horszowski 1983   57  0.3052  0.0048  0.0454  0.0465  0.0249  0.03
Indjic 2001   26  0.4721  0.0055  0.0550  0.0566  0.0161  0.02
Katin 1996   10  0.5411  0.028  0.1512  0.5747  0.0615  0.18
Kiepura 1999   50  0.3736  0.0057  0.0360  0.0362  0.0255  0.02
Korecka 1992   22  0.4855  0.0042  0.0544  0.0548  0.0539  0.05
Kushner 1990   49  0.3720  0.0028  0.1029  0.2447  0.0527  0.11
Lilamand 2001   55  0.3531  0.0051  0.0451  0.0466  0.0158  0.02
Luisada 1990   47  0.3860  0.0043  0.0548  0.0563  0.0346  0.04
Luisada 2008   13  0.534  0.094  0.205  0.6516  0.395  0.50
Lushtak 2004   53  0.3656  0.0053  0.0547  0.0565  0.0251  0.03
Malcuzynski 1951   21  0.4913  0.0130  0.1130  0.2043  0.0628  0.11
Malcuzynski 1961   35  0.4437  0.0036  0.0835  0.0860  0.0342  0.05
Magaloff 1977   15  0.536  0.047  0.176  0.6228  0.189  0.33
Magin 1975   23  0.4849  0.0023  0.1022  0.4056  0.0424  0.13
Meguri 1997   44  0.4051  0.0059  0.0261  0.0263  0.0257  0.02
Milkina 1970   6  0.579  0.029  0.167  0.6121  0.217  0.36
Mohovich 1999   16  0.5341  0.0018  0.0918  0.5139  0.0618  0.17
Nezu 2005   4  0.5823  0.0014  0.1413  0.5534  0.0813  0.21
Ohlsson 1999   5  0.588  0.033  0.231  0.7519  0.452  0.58
Olejniczak 1990   39  0.4146  0.0062  0.0263  0.0266  0.0166  0.01
Osinska 1989   45  0.3930  0.0064  0.0264  0.0265  0.0256  0.02
Perlemuter 1992   12  0.5424  0.0017  0.1216  0.535  0.553  0.54
Poblocka 1999   9  0.5426  0.0011  0.119  0.6055  0.0516  0.17
Rangell 2001   38  0.4265  0.0040  0.0833  0.0859  0.0436  0.06
Richter 1960   40  0.4132  0.0046  0.0549  0.0562  0.0345  0.04
Richter 1961   42  0.4039  0.0045  0.0741  0.0760  0.0437  0.05
Rosen 1989   25  0.4750  0.0041  0.0642  0.0642  0.0634  0.06
Rubinstein 1939   31  0.4533  0.0026  0.0823  0.3561  0.0329  0.10
Rubinstein 1952   11  0.5418  0.0010  0.118  0.6037  0.0812  0.22
Rubinstein 1966   28  0.4666  0.0024  0.0825  0.3462  0.0330  0.10
Rudanovskaya 2007   1  0.635  0.085  0.214  0.6623  0.246  0.40
Shebanova 2002   19  0.513  0.106  0.1811  0.5830  0.1510  0.29
Smith 1975   14  0.5312  0.0213  0.1210  0.5928  0.198  0.33
Sztompka 1959   33  0.4444  0.0022  0.1021  0.4449  0.0619  0.16
Tanyel 1992   62  0.1740  0.0066  0.0166  0.0166  0.0165  0.01
Tsujii 2005   7  0.5757  0.0020  0.0920  0.4854  0.0521  0.15
Uninsky 1959   36  0.4464  0.0039  0.0738  0.0762  0.0341  0.05
Vardi 1988   48  0.3816  0.0127  0.1026  0.3357  0.0426  0.11
Wasowski 1980   43  0.4047  0.0038  0.0737  0.0756  0.0533  0.06
Zimerman 1975   59  0.2862  0.0060  0.0262  0.0265  0.0264  0.02
Random 1   64  -0.0242  0.0061  0.0356  0.0363  0.0260  0.02
Random 2   66  -0.0538  0.0065  0.0265  0.0264  0.0259  0.02
Random 3   65  -0.0458  0.0052  0.0546  0.0539  0.0447  0.04

Note: To load data table give above into Excel, copy and paste the data into a text editor (such as WordPad) first, then copy the text in the editor and past into Excel. You should remove the "target" line from the data before pasting into Excel so that plotting graphs of the data is done properly.

Column descriptions

  • Performance:
  • 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
  • 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
  • 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
  • 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
  • 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
  • 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
  • NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

  • red = strongly similar performance to target
  • orange = moderately similar performance
  • yellow = weakly similar performance
  • green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
  • white = dissimilar to target
  • blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).